Originally Posted by ssh
This says if the 3 year old doesn't eat the meal, she goes to bed or to the park hungry. She gets two snacks a day, not she can have bread before bed or left over dinner. And it happens once or twice a week. Also the child may be somewhat hungry for up to three days.
She might go to the PARK without a snack. MIGHT. It doesn't mean she does.
And for the point about hunger, I am saying that a child involved in a power struggle could hold out for several days without eating the food she or he did not want to eat. Not that my child actually does.
Musician Dad, your child is not yet two? I assume that neither you nor your DH is nursing and that your child is off the bottle. I am also assuming that in this case, since most babies, if given the chance, will nurse until around two or even later, snacking in your baby's case is providing the intermittent nutrition nursing otherwise would.
Just like I nurse my own baby frequently and at night when she's hungry.
My question is directed at parents of children that are mostly on solids, that are children, who are allowed to experience at times natural consequences. A baby not even two years old would in my opinion not be exposed to many natural consequences at all. So I can see your point for your child. But wait until your baby gets older, and maybe you will be able to sympathise with the position of having just sat down to dinner (on your feet all day, of course, cooking) and having someone say,
"But... I didn't want CARROTS in my soup! Can I have rice?"
"But we always have carrots in our chicken soup. You said you wanted chicken soup."
"Not with carrots!"
"I'll take the carrots out if you want-"
"I want rice."
|Allergies, intolerance, of even just plain dislike are all reasons someone who is starving won't eat something presented.
I'm not sure you've ever seen a truly starving person. I've worked with children who haven't eaten in days. Well, that is an exaggeration. I worked on programs helping them and I just monitored them. Their parents had to dig dirt out of their pockets, grass out of their pockets, because they would eat it. They would eat paper. They would eat plenty of things that would make them sick, so strong was the instinct to get any nutrition.
Luckily, none of our children are facing that.
You suggest we don't budget. Our entire income is budgeted to the last dollar, every single penny. We save every grocery receipt. That is how we are managing to spend so much on food. It just so happens that we have other expenses--work related (like the Internet) which will be reimbursed later, clothing, transport, etc. etc. We COULD spend more on food, sure. I mean, who needs retirement or life insurance, really?
But why would we give up, say, our ability to have the kids in activities merely so that they could eat nothing but bananas all day, if they wanted to?!?! What would that achieve for the child? Besides, as we all know, once the bananas are bought, suddenly the child wants something else.
Must be nice to be in a city or sector not affected by the economic downturn and to have never been hungry.